A Deterritorialized History: Investigating German Colonialism ...

in Angra Pequeña in order to assure government protection and gain investment for his
project. 21 Similarly, other companies and the DOAG joined together frequently in order
to force government to acquiesce to their desires for commercial expansion. Companies
also sometimes exploited the machinery of law to acquire more ownership rights to
territory. For example, the DKG pushed its claims through the German colonial court
system in order to establish its entitlement to mineral-rich land. 22 Likewise, nearly all of
the colonial companies struggled to wrest more concessionary territory from the colonial
administration. One large commercial enterprise was even prosecuted by the government
for land speculation and the manipulation of government land grants. 23 The prosecution
illustrates how allegations of monopoly capitalism’s absolutely determining influence
over German colonialism are mistaken.
The colonial enterprises were for the most part able to avoid any significant
restrictions upon their practice by the Reich. The numerous cases of corruption cited by
the Zentrum deputy Mathias Erzberger during the colonial scandals of 1905-1910, such
as those of the Cameroon railroad, the Tippelskirch firm, the Woermann’s shipping line
and the land grants of the DKG, reveal how companies would exploit various illicit
means to guarantee control over the colonial market. 24 Other strains, like the bankrupting
of Southwest African colonial finances because of the massive 600 million mark cost of
the Herero war, while the DKG, whose confiscation of Herero land was largely
responsible for the revolt, prospered, further demonstrate the autonomy of colonial
business. 25 In all of these cases, the railroad, Woermann’s, the DKG and Tippelskirch
firms received only cursory reprimands for their abusive business practice. The
independence from government interference reveals how capital deterritorialized itself in
74